Allahabad High Court
Akhilesh Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 12 May, 2023
Bench: Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:33026
Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4692 of 2023
Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, Govt. U.P. Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Bhatt
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
1. Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Bhatt, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Alok Saran, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for directing the learned trial Court concerned to release the applicant on bail, accepting only one surety and one personal bond in all eight cases, wherein he has already been enlarged on bail.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that eight false cases were registered against the applicant and in all the cases, the applicant has been directed to be released on bail by the competent Courts, however, the applicant is having every apprehension that, if the same sureties will be placed in all eight cases pending before the trial Court, the same would not be accepted and despite the applicant has been directed to be released on bail, he will not come out of the prison, because he will not be in a position to arrange two separate sureties for each case. Therefore, it is submitted that, the trial Court be directed to permit the accused-applicant to file same sureties in all eight cases.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant by submitting that the condition of filing two sureties and bonds is inseparable part of the order granting bail to the applicant. Therefore, the applicant cannot be exempted from filing sureties bonds as directed by learned trial Court concerned.
5. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the applicant is stated to be involved in eight cases and is also stated that he has been enlarged on bail by the competent Courts in all eight cases, which are mentioned hereinbelow:-
(i). Case Crime No.228/2021, under Sections 406/420 I.P.C., Police Station - Hazratganj, District - Lucknow.
(ii). Case Crime No.227/2021, under Sections 406/420 I.P.C., Police Station - Hazratganj, District - Lucknow.
(iii). Case Crime No.226/2021 under Sections406/420 I.P.C., Police Station - Hazratganj, District - Lucknow.
(iv). Case Crime No.225/2021, under Sections406/420 I.P.C., Police Station - Hazratganj, District - Lucknow.
(v). Case Crime No.224/2021, under Sections406/420 I.P.C., Police Station - Hazratganj, District - Lucknow.
(vi). Case Crime No.223/2021, under Sections406/420 I.P.C., Police Station - Hazratganj, District - Lucknow.
(vii). Case Crime No.110/2021, under Sections406/420 I.P.C., Police Station - Hazratganj, District - Lucknow.
(viii). Case Crime No.1/2023, under Sections 2/3 U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station - Hazratganj, District - Lucknow.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the record, it transpires that the only grievance of the applicant appears to be that, he despite having been enlarged on bail by the orders of competent Courts in all the aforesaid eight cases is not able to come out of the prison, because he is not able to find separate sureties for each case, and a prayer has been made that, he be permitted to file same sureties in all the eight cases and a suitable direction in this regard be given to the trial court.
7. The acceptance of the sureties and the verification of them is the prerogative of the trial court which is to be accepted by learned trial Court on the basis of its own satisfaction. Therefore, the same in any case could not be interfered with by this Court. Sufficient guidelines in this regard have already been issue by this Court on administrative side to the subordinate Courts. However, as far as, the grievance of the applicant, pertaining to the fact that, he is not in a position to arrange separate sureties for all eight cases is concerned, the answer to this apprehension and grievance is implicit in Section 441-A of Code of Criminal Procedure, which is extracted as under:-
"Declaration by sureties- Every person standing surety to an accused person for his release on bail, shall make a declaration before the Court as to the number of persons to whom he has stood surety including the accused, giving therein all the relevant particulars."
8. From the perusal of the aforesaid provision contained in Section 441-A Cr.P.C. reveals that, a person who is intending to be the surety of any accused person is obliged to declare before the Court that apart from the person to whom he is standing surety, for how many other accused persons, he has stood surety.
9. Therefore, the true import of the Section 441-A of the Cr.P.C., which has been introduced by way of amendment made in the year 2006 clearly reflects that, a person may stand surety for more than one accused person and in more than one case. So there appears no bar for a person to stand surety in more than one case and also for more than one accused person. However, as stated earlier, the status, verification and the competency of the surety will always be assessed by the trial court before acceptance.
10. Thus, it is directed that if same sureties are placed by the applicant in all eight cases pending before the trial court and they are otherwise competent and their status and other particulars have been duly verified, the trial court in its own discretion may accept the same in all eight cases.
11. It is also provided that while making a decision with regard to the acceptance of the sureties as directed above, the Magistrate or the trial Court would have due regard to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vicky Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh in Special Leave to Appeal No. 8914-8915 of 2018.
12. With the aforesaid observations, the application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 12.5.2023
A.Dewal
